Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution

[Gregory Matthews]

Section 6, of the United States  Constitution reads, in part:

 

 

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

 

The following part of Section 6 is an important part that has been in the news this week:

 

 

 

. . . and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

 

My questions:  What do you think that last part means, and from a practical standpoint, what does it mean?

[Lauralea]

I think freedom of speech and from being harassed by a future authority the framers were concerned could appear.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am confident that Pam will figure me out.  She, usually does. 

 

However, In another thread I have posted a clue to my beginning question.  If you read that you will be helped in finding an answer.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.   But, what does that mean from the practical standpoint? 

 

How is the questions that I raise related to a clue that I gave in another thread?

 

NOTE:  We often refer to our Federal Constitutional freedoms.  When was the last time that we have rad the Constitution?  Do we understand it.

 

I will have to admit, that I had forgotten about the importance of the section that I quoted in the beginning post, until I read a news item the commented on that section         in a matter related to a current political situation.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm not up to par on the past week's political situations, though I think the immigration and Obama's threat to make a unilateral decision is foremost on the tables, at present.

 

But the Constitution's Sect 6 makes me think that the *news media* shouldn't be interrogating any senator or representative on any issue spoken of while Congress is in session.

 

I may be way off on my assumption..

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.   I am going to give you a partial answer to my questions:

 

1) This provision to the Constitution applies to any speech made by a member of Congress (both the Senate and the House) in a debate in that chamber.

 

2) Congress publishes, for the record, a report of the debates.

 

3) The rules of Congress allow a member to "revise and amend" their published comments.  This means that the published records  may be either more or less than what was actually said in the debate.

 

4) The published record of the debates is available to the public.

 

5) The phrase "not questioned in any other place" includes in its meaning that a member of Congress may not be questioned in a Court of Law in relation to anything said in a  debate in Congress and/or published in the record of that debate.

 

6) Let us say now that a member of Congress were in a debate reveal some item of classified information and that the member of Congress revised the publication of the speech to include more classified information that was actually stated in the speech:  In this case, that member of Congress could not be prosecuted in a criminal (or civil) court for revealing classified information to the public, or for any other reason.  And, that classified information would be available to the public due to the fact that the published record is available to the public.

 

NOTE:  This has actually happened in the past and I have posted a clue to this in another thread as to when it happened.  Pam, you will likely be able to identify that thread, as others will also likely be able to identify it.  However, will any of you be able to tell us of the circumstances under which this issue has been discussed in the public media this past week?  It is all out there in the news.

 

No, it is not related to immigration.

 

O.K.  I will give you a little clue:  A  current United States Senator had stated that he/she is thinking about placing a large amount of classified information into the record under the provisions of Section 6 of the Constitution.  With this clue, what is that classified information about?

[Tom Wetmore]

I wish him luck. The immunity from prosecution that he may be assuming is his is not unqualified or limitless. That is clear for the very language of Article 6. The exception clause that precedes the the immunity provision he apparently wants to claim. He needs to consider carefully whether reading/ revealing classified material into the Congrssional Record could fit within "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace". Without looking into this any deeper, I would make the educated guess that it does. If revealing classified information is any one of those, he is not immune from arrest and prosecution. Depending on what the information is about, it could fit into at least one of those, maybe more.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I read that part and I  had the same thinking that Tom has expressed.

 

However after I  had reviewed the material that I have posted about Senator Grave, I decided that the clause I have quoted regarding speech in a debate   in Congress stood alone and apart from the "treason" phrase.  But, I acknowledge that I may be wrong.  But, I tend to think that the failure to prosecute Senator Gravel indicates that I am correct.

 

NOTE:  Senator Gravel is not suggesting that he might do the same again.  Rather, another Senator is suggesting that he/she might do the same with certain classified material.

 

Who is that Senator?

 

What its the classified material that he/she is suggesting he/she might introduce into a speech and the Congressional Record.

[pierrepaul]

The following is from Constitutional Law, 7th edition, John E. Nowak, Ronald D. Rotunda, page 298 (s. 7.10 of the treatise).

 

Article I, section 6o fhte Consitution creates the privilege from arrest clause: [the clause is quoted here]

 

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, arrest in civil cases was common. The Court has interpreted this clause in light o fthis history. The privilege, thus, is limited to protecting Congressmen from a practice that is now obsolete.

 

Arrest is not the swame as service of process. Thus the privilege does not protect a congressman from service of process in a civil case, or in a criminal case. Because the privilege is limited to civil suits, it affords no protection from arrest in any criminal case. The Court has shown no interest in reading this clause more expansively, and a broader reading is not consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

 

in a footnote, the authors quote the court in the 1934 decision of Long v. Ansell, "Clause 1 [of section 6] defines the extent of the immunity. Its language is exact and leaves no room for a construction which would extend the privilege beyond the terms of the grant."

 

This is not to say that one day an activist court will not read something else into this section, but for the moment, the above likely accurately describes the state of the law.

[Gregory Matthews]

Let us  continue to look at this issue.  A report on the CIA interrogation of prisoners has been released.  No problems with that other than claims that the released report did not go far enough in informing the public as to actually what has gone one.

 

One of those who takes the position that the released CIA report did not go far enough is Senator Mark Udall.  Yesterday (December 10) Senator Udall took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and acting under the provisions of Section 6 delivered a 50 minute speech.  In that speech about the findings of the so-called Panetta Review.   The Panetta Review is a classified document which has never been made public.  It was first revealed to the public by Senator Udall.  In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Udall disclosed some of its key findings and conclusions and how they contradict the public statements of past C"IA" Directors and the present Director, John Brenan.

 

With Udall's speech yesterday and his release of classified information, it will be seen whether or not any attempt to prosecute him will be made due to the provisions of Section of the U.S. Constitution.  If he is not prosecuted, the assumption may be made that it was because of the protections of Section 6.